Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann: The social construction of reality

trextemperΜηχανική

22 Φεβ 2014 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 4 μήνες)

121 εμφανίσεις


1

Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann: The social
construction of reality

Introduction: the problem of the sociology of knowledge

Reality and knowledge

Long history of philosophical inquiry. Also in sociology >
Sociology of knowledge: dealing with how knowled
ge of
reality comes to be socially established as reality.

Object of study

The analysis of the social construction of reality. Differs from
the traditional sociology of knowledge.

Previously

Explicate in what way and why, Berger and Luckmann
deviate.

Ma
x Scheler

Wissensoziologie. Germany 1920s. Philosophy. Aim to clear
away the problem of relativity. See point 1, 2 and 3 below.

General agreement

Concerned with the relationship between human thought and
the social context within which it arises.

The prob
lem of the vertigo of relativity.

1. Marx

Man’s consciousness is determined by his social being.
f摥潬潧o⁡湤⁦慬獥⁣ 湳nio畳湥s献s
卵扳pr畣t畲支s異ur獴r畣ture.

㈮⁎i整z獣桥h渠i摥慳

A湴i
-
i摥dli獭⸠卯捩al⁳ig湩fi捡n捥f⁤ 捥pti潮o慮搠獥lf
-
摥d数tio測⁡湤
f ill畳i潮oa猠s 捥s獡ry⁣潮 iti潮o潦 lif攮eq桥
慲t 潦i獴r畳tW 獥i湧⁴桲潵o栠h桥hf慣慤a猠潦 獯si慬⁳ r畣t畲e献

㌮⁈ist潲ici獭

䕳瀮⁄ilth敹⸠.桥hrelativity 潦⁡ll⁰敲s灥ptiv敳 ⁨畭慮a
敶敮e猬⁴桥hi湥nit慢a攠桩獴ori捩ty ⁨畭慮⁴桯畧桴.

harl 䵡湮n敩m

h敹⁣潮 敲nW⁉摥潬潧y‾漠桵 慮⁴桯畧桴⁩mm畮攠u漠o桥h
i摥dl潧izi湧⁩湦l略湣敳f⁩t猠so捩慬⁣潮o數e.

o敬ati潮i獭

E慳灰獯p搠d漠relativi獭FW k漠捡灩tul慴i潮o潦 t桯畧桴 扥bor攠
t桥⁳潣oo
-
桩獴潲i捡l⁲敬慴iviti敳ⰠI畴 r散潧湩ti潮⁴桡h
k湯nl敤e攠e畳u⁡ w慹猠s
攠k湯nl敤e攠er潭⁡⁣敲tai渠
灯獩tio渮

䕳灡bi湧⁩摥dl潧y

k潴⁥ 慤a捡t敤⁣潭灬整elyⰠ扵Iitig慴敤⁢e⁴桥h獹獴敭慴i挠
慮aly獩猠潦 慳慮a⁰潳 tio湳⁡猠s潳oi扬攮⁂elief i渠n桥
i湴敬lig敮e獩a


fr敥 潦⁣la獳⁩湴敲e獴献

o潢敲t⁍ rt潮

卥敫猠s漠i湴敧r慴攠獯si潬潧
y 湯nl敤e攠睩e栠htru捴畲慬
-
f畮uti潮慬 t桥潲y⸠

qr慤ati潮ol⁥ 灩ri捡l⁦o捵c

q桥⁳灨敲攠潦 i摥d猬f⁴h敯r整i捡l t桯畧桴.

Berger and Luckmann’s
灲oj散t

k潴⁣潮捥rn敤⁷et栠h畣栠upi獴敭潬潧i捡l⁡湤整桯摯l潧i捡l
灲潢o敭献⁒慴桥r⁴h攠eo捩ol潧o 湯nl敤
g攠桡猠t漠捯湣nrn
its敬f⁷it栠敶敲ythi湧⁴桡h⁰慳獥猠s猠s湯nl敤e攠e渠獯捩ety⸠
e敮e攠湯t⁴桥hr整ic慬 i摥d猬⁗ lt慮獨su畮u敮⸠e桡t⁰敯灬e
k湯n⁡ ⁲敡lity⁩渠nh敩r⁥ ery摡div敳⸠.渠獨潲t⁴桥⁳oci慬
捯湳tr畣ti潮f⁲e慬ity.

f湦l略湣敳

䵡rxⰠIlfr敤⁇敨e敮Ⱐe
敬m畴栠偬敳s湥n.⁄畲k桥hm
th攠
湡nur攠ef⁳ 捩al⁲敡lityF;⁍ar硩a渠摩慬散tic慬 t桥hry ⁳潣oety;
坥扥r
t桥h捯湳tituti潮 r敡lity⁴hr潵o栠獵hj散tiv攠
m敡湩湧猩ⰠI敯eg攠䡥牢敲t 䵥慤aE獯捩al
-
灳p捨潬潧i捡l
灲敳u灰潳iti潮oF.

I. The foundations of knowledge i
n everyday life

1. THE REALITY OF EVERYDAY LIFE

The object of sociology

The empirical world as we interpret and perceive the reality.

Intersubjective
Necessary to clarify the foundations of knowledge in

2

commonsense of the world

everyday life. As we come

to share an intersubjective
understanding of the everyday reality.

> Phenomenological analysis

As a descriptive method. Refrains as such from causal and
genetic hypotheses. Uncover various layers of experiences
and structures of meaning.

Spheres of real
ity

E.g. dreamworld vs. everyday reality: “different objects
presents themselves to consciousness (…)”

q桥⁲e慬ity 敶敲y摡dife

o敡lity⁰慲 數eell敮e攮⁐e敳敮e猠it獥lf⁡猠s渠潢j散tiv攬⁡⁰ iori
reality: “imposes itself upon consciousness in the most
m
assive, urgent and intense manner.” Self
-
敶i摥湴⁡湤
捯c灥pli湧⁦a捴icity.

Cl潳on敳sLr敭潴敮e獳

Experienced around the “here” of my body and the “now” of
my⁰ 敳敮e⸠.r潭⁴桩猠捬o獥湥n猠t漠獰慴ially⁡湤 t敭灯p慬ly
r敭潴敮es献⁚潮敳 ⁲e慬ity.

f湴敲獵sje
捴iv攠睯牬d

卨慲敤⁷it栠潴h敲献⁓桡r灬y⁤ ffer敮tiat敤efr潭 桥h re慬iti敳
E獵sh⁡ y⁤ 敡mw潲l搩⸠l湧i湧⁣ mm畮u捡ti潮⁰ro捥獳敳
潦敡湩湧献‾⁃潭m潮獥湳n湯nl敤e攮

卥捴or猠sf⁥ 敲y摡dife

䕶敲y摡d⁲潵oi湥n⁡湤 獥ct潲猠sf⁩nterru灴i潮oL灲潢oem献s
f湴
敲r異ui潮o r潵tin敳‾ t桥⁲e慬ity 敶敲y摡dif攠s敥k猠s漠
i湴敧r慴攠t桥h灲潢l敭慴i挠ce捴潲⁩nt漠o桡t⁩猠slre慤a
畮灲潢l敭慴i挮

䕸捵bsi潮猠s漠潴h敲 r敡lities

q桥慴敲ⰠIre慭w潲l搮dq桥hr整畲渠n漠t桥⁥ 敲y摡dif攠e灰敡r猠
慳⁣潭i湧⁨潭攠er潭⁥硣畲獩o湳⸠
Ba捫⁴漠oh攠e敡l⁷orl搮d
“Endemic producers of finite provinces of meaning”
Att敮ti潮⁩猠sur湥搠慷慹⁦r潭⁴桥⁲敡lity ⁥ 敲y摡dif攮

印慴i慬 獴r畣t畲慴i潮

e慳⁡⁳o捩慬⁤im敮ei潮o㰠<y m慮a灵pati潮⁺潮攠onter獥捴猠
wit栠t桡t 潴h敲献

q敭灯pal⁳tru捴urat
i潮

-

捯cr捩ve

A渠n湴rin獩挠灲o灥pty ⁴桥⁣潮 ci潵獮ss献sq敭灯p慬ly
潲摥r敤⁣潮獣i潵獮ss献sqem灯p慬⁤ m敮ei潮 t桥h
i湴敲獵bje捴ivity ⁥ 敲y摡yif攮e䵹 渠nif攠e湤y 潷渠
灲oj散t猠桡v攠e漠扥o捯crel慴敤⁷楴栠hhi猠t敭灯p慬⁳ r畣t畲攠ef
敶敲y摡dif攮e

2. SOCIAL INTERACTION IN EVERYDAY LIFE

Face
-
to
-
face situations

definitely priviliged as situations where people really can
learn to know each other. “The prototype of social
interaction”. This sub
-
捨c灴敲⁩猠sl敡rly ⁧r敡t i湴敲est⁩渠愠
摩獣u獳i潮f
灥r獯s慬敤e愠a湤⁳潣o慬 int敲慣ti潮o⁆ 䘠
encounters > full access to the other’s “symptoms”: the other
i猠s畬ly⁲敡l.

q桥 h敲 慳潲攠ee慬 t桡n
my獥lf

“What I am” is not so available. The need for deliberate
捯湴敭灬atio渠異潮y獥lf⸠䵡k敳攠e桩湫
f Foucault’s
湯n敢e潫⁡湤扶i潵oly⁰敲獯湡l敤e愠a猠t潯l猠f潲 t桥⁳ lf.

qy灩f慣t潲y⁳ 桥h敳

r獥搠dl獯si渠䘲n⁥湣潵nter献⁂畴潲攠el數ibl攠en搠慰t⁦潲
捨c湧攠eh慮⁩ne獳⁰r潸im慴攠en捯畮ter献

卯捩al⁳tru捴ure

C潮oin畵u ⁴y灩fi捡tio湳n⁰ 潧r敳siv敬y
m潲攠e湯湹m潵猠o猠
they are removed from the “here and now” of the F2F
獩t畡ui潮⸠o潣o慬 獴r畣t畲攠e猠s桥h獵s ⁴桥獥 ty灩fi捡ti潮献

3. LANGUAGE AND KNOWLEDGE IN EVERYDAY LIFE

Objectivation

Human expressions objectified. The reality of everyday life is
d
ependent of objectivations.

Signification

Human production of signs. With explicit intention to serve as
an index of subjective meanings. Available beyond the
expression of subjective intentions “here and now.”

a整慣h慢ality

fr潭⁩mm敤e慴攠e硰xe獳i潮猠s
f⁳畢j散tivity.

䱡湧畡ue

慳扶i潵oly⁴桥潳o im灯pt慮t⁳ig渠獹獴敭⸠䱡湧畡来湬y

3

as far as vocal expressions have become capable of
detachement from the immediate “here and now” of
獵sje捴iv攠et慴e献⁁渠畮s敲st慮ai湧 慮a畡u攠e猠s敱eir敤ei渠
潲摥r⁴o

畮摥rst慮搠t桥hr敡lity ⁥ 敲y摡dif攮

䱡湧畡u攠e猠摥t慣桥d

㰠ㄮ⁡< te捨湩捡lly敤e慴ed

㰠㈮⁩t猠s慰a捩ty⁴漠捯om畮i捡t攠e敡湩湧猠s桡h 慲攠湯e 摩re捴
expressoins of subjectivity “here and now.” Accumulations of
m敡湩湧⁡湤⁥硰xrie湣n.

䵡t敲i慬is敤e

敡ki湧Lwriti湧

“I hear
myself

as I speak. My subjective meanings become
“more real” to me. Again clearly parallels to Foucault’s
technologies of the self. “Ready
-
mades” > objectification of
my experiences. Transcends the “here and now”.

qr慮a捥湤敮e慬



Bri
dges different zones within the reality of everyday
life, integrates into a meaningful whole.



Transcends the reality of everyday life altogether: like
writing down one’s dreams.

o敬敶慮a湯nle摧e

l畲⁥ 敲y摡dife⁣潮獩st猠潦湯nl敤e攠eh慴 i猠r敬敶慮a⁴
o畲
潷渠niv敳ⰠI畲 渠獩t畡tio湳⸠䅳潮o⁡ ⁷攠摯efin攠eit栠thi猬s
t桥h攬⁷楤敲湯nle摧攠e猠irrel敶慮aⰠ畮湥捥獳慲y⸠.ow敶敲Ⱐ
l敡v敳 t桥⁷hrl搠d敨e湤nr⁩mm敤e慴攠rel敶慮a攠慳 慱略⸠
坥 敤et⁨慶攠摥tail敤ek湯nl敤e攠e扯畴 t桩猠睯sld.

o敬敶慮a攠獴
r畣t畲敳

䵹⁲敬敶慮a攠etr畣tur敳 int敲獥捴猠睩t栠hh攠e敬敶慮a攠
獴ru捴ure猠潦 潴h敲猠㸠>攠e慶攠e湴ere獴i湧⁴桩湧猠s漠獡y⁴漠
敡捨t桥r.

II. Society as objective reality

1. INSTITUTIONALIZATION

a) Organisn and activity

World
-
opennes: man’s relationsip to
桩猠s湶ir潮o敮e⸠k潴
灲e
-
摥d敲mi湥搠批⁢ ol潧ic慬⁥ 畩灭敮e.

B散潭i湧⁨ m慮

A continous process, not completed in the mother’s body.
C潮oin畩湧⁳潣ially⁤整敲mi湥搠i湴敲fer敮e攮

e畭慮⁢ai湧猠s潮獴r畣t th敩r 潷渠湡t畲攬⁰e潤畣o
桩mL桥h獥lf⸠偬慳ticity ⁨
um慮at畲eL潲g慮i獭⸠.桵h⁴桥h
獥lf⁨ 猠s漠扥⁵湤敲獴潯搠dn⁲敬慴i潮ot漠o桥⁥湣潭灡p獩湧
獯si慬 敮eir潮o敮e.

卯捩al⁥ ter灲ise

“Homo sapiens is always, and in the same measure, homo
socius.”

却pbility⁡湤⁳潣o慬 潲摥r?

e潷⁣ 渠nh敲e⁢攠 t慢ility⁩f⁴h攠e
畭慮⁢ai湧⁩s⁣桡r慣t敲i獥搠
批⁷潲ld
-
潰敮o湥ns?



A given social order precedes any individual
organismic development.

In what order does social order itself arise?

2)

Social order is an ongoing human production. Social
order exists only as a product of human a
ctivity.


b) Origins of
institutionalization

Human activity is subject to
habitualization
: frequently
repetated actions > patterns. Narrows choices, frees energy to
concentrate on other decisions. Habitualization precedes
institutionalization.

Institutio
nalizations arise

Whenever there is a reciprocal typification of habitalized
actions by types of actors. Shared typifications. Institutions
imply historicity and control.

Control human conduct

Predefined patterns of conduct. Channels human action.
Social
control through institutionalization.


4

A and B example

Illustrates how habits evolve. When passed from generations:
instutions
in nucleo
.

Appears as natural

and objective. All institutions appears as given, unalterable
and self
-
evident. Instutional worlds

are experienced as
objective reality.

Humanly produced
objectivity

The objectivity of the institutional world is humanly
produced, constructed objectivity. Objectivation: the process
by which the externalizeed products of human activity attain
the charac
ter of objectivity.

Dialectical relations

Between man, the producer, and the social world, his/her
product.

Externalization

Objectivation

Internalization

Society is a human product. Society is an objective reality.
Human is a social product.

Requires le
gitimization.

Ways by which it can be explained and justified < Historical
reality: the same story must be told. Consistent and
comprehensive formulas.

Knowledge about society

Realization in a double sense:

1)

apprehending the objectivated social reality

2)

ong
oingly producing this reality

The constructed reality

“It is learned as objective truth in the course of socialization
慮搠ah畳ui湴敲aliz敤e慳⁳ bj散tiv攠e敡lity⸠.hi猠r敡lity⁩渠n畲渠
has power to shape the individual.”

c) Sedimentation and
tradition

A s
mall part of human experiences are retained, and saved as
recognizable and memorable entities. Individual
sedimentation. Intersubjective sedimentation: when these
experiences are shared > common stock of knowledge.

Detached experiences

Sedimented experien
ces are detached from their original
context < Language/objectively sign system. Experiences are
transmittable. Objectivates the shared experiences, makes
them available to all within the linguistic community (40
years later, blogs seem to be relevant in t
his discussion).

Sedimentation and
institutions

Sedimented institutional meanings. Formula character to
ensure their memorability: Conceived and communicated as
knowledge. Various mnemotechnic aids.

d) Roles

Typification of forms of action, objectified l
inguistically:
developed role
-
vocabularoy. Performers of objective,
generally known actions. Roles when typification occurs in
the context of an objectified stock of knowledge common to a
collectivity of actors.

Origins of roles

Lie in the process of habi
tualization and objectivation (as the
origins of institutions). All institutionalized conduct involves
roles.

Roles represent institutional
order

Takes place on two levels:

1)

Performance of the role represents itself: e.g. the
judging individual is not acti
ng “on his own” but as a
j畤u攮



The role represents an entire institutional nexus of
conduct.

Roles makes institutions a real presence in our experiences.

Institutions are further represented byy their linguistic
objectifications.

Roles and knowledge

Role
s as mediators of specific sectors of the common stock of

5

knowledge. Implies a social distribution of knowledg: what is
generally relevant and what is relevant only for specific roles.

e) Scope and modes of
institutionalization

The scope of institutionali
zation depends on the generality of
the relevance structures > Ideal
-
typical exttremese to illustrate
variations.

Differentiation

< degree of division of labour with concomintant
differentiation of institution. Specialized knowledge.

< Economic surplus, m
akes possible a specialization and
segmentation in the common stock of knowledge. Theoretical
knowledge.

Relationships between
institutions?

In differentiated societies. Problem of integrating meanings
within the entire society > Propaganda to convince ot
her.

Subuniverses of meaning

In institutionally segmented societies. Result from
accentuations of role specialization: role
-
specific knowledge
becomes esoteric against the common stock of knowledge.
Subuniverses must be carried by a particular collectivit
y.

> Compexity

Subuniverses of meaning > variety of perspectives on the
toltal society. Different Weltanschauungen.

Increasingly inaccessible to outsiders.

Reification of social reality

The manner in which the institutional order is objectified. The
appr
ehension of human phenomena as if they were non
-
human. This sort of bear resemblance to Feenberg’s argument
捯湣er湩湧⁴散桮i捡l⁣潤敳.⁈潷⁷攠摯潴 獥攠t桥⁨ m慮a
v慬略u⁴桥h敩渮⁒敩fi捡ti潮o慳⁡渠數er敭攠et数⁩渠t桥h灲潣o獳
潢j散tiv慴i潮W⁦i硡t敤⁡ a

n潮
-
桵m慮⁩湥nt fa捴i捩ty.

“Typically, the real relationship between man and his world is
reversed in consciousness.”

o敩fi捡ti潮o⁳潣ial⁲oles

Roles reified in the same manner as institions. “I am just
doing my job”. Narrows the subjective distance th
慴 th攠
i湤nvi摵慬慹⁥ t慢li獨⁢stw敥渠nimL桥hs敬f⁡湤 桩猯h敲⁲ole
-
灬慹i湧.

2. LEGITIMATION (derived from Weber)

a) Origins of symbolic
universes

How we come to live in the same world? Symbolic universes
are legitimated and appear as the most “real wor
ld.”

䱥iitim慴i潮

“second
-
order” objectivation of meaning. Produces new
m敡湩湧猬⁩湴敧rat敤⁷it栠di獰srat攠i湳tit畴i潮慬⁰r潣敳獥献

f湴敧r慴i潮渠tw漠o敶敬s

E慮搠捯cr敳p潮摩湧ly⁴桥ⁱ略uti潮f⁳ bje捴iv攠灬a畳u扩lityFW



The totality of the institutiona
l order should make
sense to participants in different institutional
processes.

2.

The totality of the individual’s life must be made
獵sje捴iv敬y敡湩湧f畬⸠偬慵aibl攠獵sj散tiv攠
扩潧r慰ai敳.


q桥⁰ o扬敭 敧itim慴ion

Ari獥猠睨敮st桥h潢j散tiv慴i潮猠潦 th
e
湯n⁨ist潲icF
i湳tit畴i潵o慬r摥r⁡r攠t漠o攠er慮amitt敤et漠愠o敷⁧敮er慴i潮⸠
坨t渠t桥⁵湩ty ⁨ 獴ory⁡湤⁢ 潧r慰桹⁩猠扲潫敮⸠
䱥iitim慴i潮⁩渠nr摥r t漠數灬ai渠慮搠ju獴ify.

Legitimation’s way of
數灬aini湧

䕸灬bi湳nt桥hi湳titutio湡n 潲摥d⁢ ⁡ cri扩n
g⁣潧湩tiv攠e慬i摩ty
t漠ot猠sbje捴iv慴敤敡湩湧献

C潧湩tiv攠e猠睥ll 慳 rm慴iv攠el敭敮e⸠h湯nl敤e攠灲散敤e猠
v慬略u⁩渠nhi猠l敧itim慴i湧⁰r潣o獳.

A湡nytic慬 l敶敬s
l敧itim慴i潮oE潶敲la灳p
敭灩ri捡llyF

1.

Incipient legitimation:
present as soon as a system

of linguistic objectifications of human experience is
transmitted.


6

2.

Theoretical propositions in a rudimentary form:

ex. explanatory schemes relating sets of objective
meanings. Pragmatic schemes, directly related to
actions.

3.

Explicit theories:

by which an
institutional sector is
legitimated in terms of differenitated body of
knowledge. Frames of reference for the respective
sectors of institutionalized conduct. Begin to move
beyond mere pragmatic application > “pure theory”.

4.

Symbolic universes:

Bodies of th
eoretical tradition
that integrate provinces of meaning and encompass
the institutional order in a symbolic totality. Symbolic
processes (of signification): refer to realities other
than those of everyday experience. All sectors of the
institutional order
are integrated in an all
-
embracing
frame of reference. Encompasses all socially
objectivated and subjectively real meanings.

Crystallizatio of symbolic
universes

follows processes of objectivation, sedimentation and
accumulatin of knowledge. Social produc
ts with a history.

Universes and biographies

How symbolic universes operate to legitimate individual
biograhy and institutional order.

Nomic/ordering function

provides order for the subjective apprehension of human
experience. All experiences are incorpo
rated into a whole.
The world as more intelligible (and meaningful?).

Nomic function for
individual experience

Puts everything in its right place, and allows one to return to
reality (when being in marginal situations).

Integration


for discrepant meani
ngs actualized within everyday life.
Symbolic universe orders and integrates all meanings, roles,
priorities by placing them in a general context.

Ordering biography

Different phases, periodization. Made intelligeble.

Subjective identity

The legitimating

function of symbolic universes > pertain to
correctness of individual identities. “True self” as an
ultimately real entity. “(…) legitimation again integrates all
捯湣eiv慢a攠tr慮af潲m慴ion猠潦 i摥dtity⁷it栠t桥hi摥dtity
w桯獥⁲敡lity⁩猠sr潵湤敤⁩渠敶敲y
day life in society.” A
桩敲慲捨c ⁳ lf
-
慰灲敨敮ei潮猠of i摥dtity.

卯捩al⁳ig湩fi捡n捥f
獹s扯bi挠畮iv敲獥s

偡malle搠d漠th慴f⁩湤nvi摵al⁳ g湩fi捡湣攮e



Provide the delimination of social reality: what is
relevant in terms of social interaction.



Order
s history

Makes comprehensive

Comprehensive integration of all institutional processes. The
entire society makes sense.

Threat

Continually threatened by the presence of realities that are
meaningless in its terms.

Human existence as
externalization

“As
m慮⁥硴er湡liz敳⁨im獥lfⰠ桥⁣潮otr畣t猠t桥⁷hrl搠i湴漠
w桩捨⁨攠ext敲湡niz敳⁨im獥lf⸠.渠n桥⁰r潣敳猠潦
數eer湡liz慴i潮Ⱐ桥⁰roj散t猠桩猠潷渠s敡湩湧猠i湴o⁲e慬ity.

b) Conceptual machineries
of universe
-
maintenance

The symbolic universe is theoretical. Sti
ll, one lives typically
naively within a symbolic universe. Taken
-
for
-
granted, not
reflected upon.

Legitimation to the second
degree


s潰桩獴i捡t敤

q桥潲izi湧⁡扯畴 t桥h獹mb潬i挠畮cv敲獥⸠卵捨敧itimiz慴i潮猠
摥dcrib敤⁡s慣桩湥nie猠潦⁵湩v敲se
-
m慩湴慩n
慮a攮e

k散敳s慲y⁷桥渠

r湩v敲獥
-
m慩湴ai湡n捥⁢ c潭敳散敳s慲y⁷桥渠h桥⁳祭扯bi挠
畮uv敲獥⁨慳 扥b潭攠e⁰ 潢l敭
潴桥rwis攠el敦
-
l敧itim慴i湧F
㰠<湥nit慢l攠t敮ei潮猠潦 t桥h灲潣o獳e猠潦⁩n獴itutio湡nizati潮o

7

All social phenomena are social constructions. Tha
t is,
symbolic universes are incipiently problematic.

Universes transmitted

From one generation to another. But, socializations are never
complete


慬w慹猠s摩o獹湣n慣i敳.

C潮捥灴畡u慣桩湥ries

q桥敥搠dor⁲数e敳si潮f 摥di慮ae猯慧慩湳n⁨敲整i捡l
捨cl
l敮e攮⁃潮e数e畡u慣桩湥rie猠扯t栠l敧itimiz敳⁡湤
m潤ofi敳 獹s扯bi挠c湩v敲se献



Heretical challenge from within society



When confronted with another society with a very
different history: demonstrates that one’s own
畮uv敲獥⁩猠湯n i湥nit慢l攮

C潮獰o捵潵c

ty灥p

䵹t桯h潧ic慬Ⱐt桥hl潧i捡lⰠ灨pl潳潰oic慬Ⱐ獣i敮eific

ㄮ⁍Nt桯h潧y

o数e敳敮e猠s桥潳o⁡r捨ci挠c潲m ⁵ iv敲獥
-
m慩湴慩湡湣攮e
Cl潳o獴 t漠o桥hïv攠e敶敬 潦⁳祭扯bi挠畮iv敲獥⁡湤潴 t潯⁦慲
r敭潶敤⁦r潭⁴桥敶敬f w桡h⁩猠s敮er慬ly湯n渮

㈮⁔he
潬潧y

m潲攠e慮潮a捡lyt桯h潧ie献⁄楳ti湧畩獨s搠fr潭yt桯h潧y
i渠n敲m猠潦⁧r敡t敲⁤敧r敥 of⁴h敯er整i捡l⁳ 獴敭慴iz慴i潮⸠
䙵牴h敲 r敭潶敤⁦r潭⁴桥懯v攠e敶敬⸠周攠扯摹
t桥hl潧i捡l湯nl敤e攠es⁨敮e攠f潲 摩ffi捵lt t漠o捱畩re⸠
印散p慬ist⁥ it攠e慳⁡l獯
for 灨pl潳潰桹⁡湤 獣i敮e攩.

㌮⁡湤‴⸠P桩l潳潰桹⁡湤
獣ie湣n

o敭ov敤⁦r潭⁴桥hïv攠eev敬⸠印散.慬ist献⁓散ul慲iz慴i潮⁡o搠
獯灨s獴i捡t敤e畮uv敲獥
-
m慩湴ai湡湣攮

q桥r慰a

q漠敮eur攠t桡t⁡ t畡lr⁰潴敮ei慬 摥di慮t猠st慹⁷ithi渠t桥h
i湳tit畴i潮oliz敤⁤efinit
i潮o ⁲敡lity⸠.灰p潰oiat攠epe捩ali獴献
f湴敲湡nizati潮 愠a潮捥pt畡u慣桩n敲y.

ki桩l慴i潮

a敮e敳⁴h攠ee慬ity ⁰桥湯m敮e⁡湤⁩nt敲pretati潮猠sh慴⁤漠
湯n⁦it⁷it栠hh攠e潮捵cr敮t⁳祭扯bi挠畮cv敲獥⸠.s獩g湩ng⁡渠
i湦eri潲湴ol潧i捡l⁳tat畳ut漠摥oi慮a
摥diniti潮献

c) Social organization for
Universe
-
Maintainance

Socially constructed universes change < product of human
activity. Definitions are always embodied: individuals/groups
serve as definers of reality. The question is “says who?”

印散p慬iz慴i潮o
潦湯nl敤ee

㰠<桥h摩visi潮f慢潵r⸠.潲攠e潭灬數⁦orm猠潦湯nl敤e攠
敭敲g攠⬠e捯湯ci挠c畲灬usW
experts
society

Consequences

1.

the emergence of pure theory

2.

strenghtening of traditionalism in the institutionalized
actions thus legitimated. > Inertia: resis
tance to
change. Limiting the flexibility of human actions.

Occassions for social
conflict



between experts and practitioners: may lead to
emergence of rival definitos of reality, and the
appearance of new experts.



Between rival groups of experts. Problem
atic when
theories do not have pragmatic applications. Cannot
really be tested.

Power

Includes the power to determine the power to produce reality:
determine decisive socialization. “Highly abstracted
獹s扯biz慴io湳n慲攠v慬id慴敤e批 獯sial rat桥r t桡渠emp
iri捡l
獵灰潲t⸠ft is 灯p獩bl攠t漠s慹 t桡h i渠thi猠m慮湥r 愠灳p畤u
-
pragmatism is reintroduced.”

C潭灥pition

扥bw敥渠 riv慬 摥finiti潮s 潦 r敡lity ar攠 捯湳n慮a. lften
捯湮cct敤e t漠 摩ffer敮t s灨敲e猯獯si慬 gr潵灳⸠ qh敯ey is
摥d潳or慴敤et漠b攠灲慧m慴i捡lly 獵
灥rior 批 it猠慰ali捡扩lity
to the social interests in the group that is its “carrier”. Pseudo
-
灲慧m慴i獭.

r湩v敲獡l⁥硰敲ts

坩t栠慮a敦f散tiv攠m潮潰潬y 潶敲 慬l 畬tim慴攠摥finiti潮猠潦

8

society. Single symbolic tradtion. Primitve societies. Unified
power s
tructure. Liquidating strategies to deal with deviances:
physically destroyed; integrated within the tradition itself; or
segregated within the society and made harmless. Ex.
Medieval Christendom.

Monopolistic situations

Presuppose a high degree of social
-
structural stability.
Moreover functions structurally stabilizing.

Ideology

When a particular definition of reality becomes attached to a
concrete power interest. Must be modified to suit the specific
interests and values it must now legitimiate. A proce
ss of
selection and addition. Ex. Constantine’s involvement in the
C桲istol潧i慬 捯ctr潶敲sie献

䵯jt⁳潣ieti敳⁡r攠elur慬istic

卨慲敤e c潲攠 畮iv敲獥 慮搠 摩ffer敮t 灡pti慬 u湩v敲獥s
捯c硩獴i湧.

偲m獵s灯獥s

慮a ur扡b 獯捩etyⰠ 桩g桬y 摥d敬潥搠 divi獩潮o of l慢o
畲I
摩ff敲敮eiatio渠 of 獯捩慬 str畣tur攬e hig栠 散o湯ni挠 獵spl畳u
q桵猠s潭灬數⁳潣o整i敳⸠

偬畲ali獭⁡湤⁣桡湧e

偬畲ali獭 慣捥ler慴敳 捨c湧攮ee敬灳pt漠畮u敲mi湥nt桥hc桡湧e
-
r敳i獴慮a effi捡捹 潦 tr慤ati潮慬 摥diniti潮o 潦 r敡lity.
䕮捯畲慧敳⁢潴h⁳ 数eici獭
慮搠an湯n慴i潮o

卵扳p獴敭

f湴敬l散t畡l献sa敶i慮a献s䱡ck 潦 t桥潲eti捡l i湴敧r慴i潮 within
t桥h獯sial 畮iv敲獥 潦 獯siety⸠C潵湴er
-
數灥rt. 卵p
-
畮uv敲獥sI
獵s
-
獯si整i敳⸠.潵湴敲
-
摥di湩ti潮猠


捯c湴er
-
獯si整ie献

ai慬e捴i捡l⁰r潣敳獥s

B整w敥渠t桥潲i敳Lid敡猠
慮a⁴桥ir⁳畳t慩湩湧⁳潣ial⁰ 潣敳獥献

III. Society as subjective reality

1. INTERNALIZATION OF REALITY

The dialectics of society

ongoing dialectic process: moments of externalization,
objectivation, internalization.


扵b 湯t i渠 愠 tem灯p慬
sequence. “(
…) to be in society is to participate in its
dialectic.”

f湤畣n敤⁩nt漠灡rtici灡tion

Beginning point: internalization. “Taking over” the world in
w桩捨t桥r猠slr敡摹iv攮

卯捩alizati潮

q桥 捯c灲敨en獩v攠慮a 捯湳nst敮t i湤畣ti潮o潦 慮ain摩vi摵dl
i湴o th
攠obje捴iv攠w潲l搠of 愠獯捩ety 潲 愠獥ct潲 潦 it. 偲mm慲y
慮搠ae捯湤cry⁳潣i慬iz慴i潮.

a) Primary socialization

First childhood socialization. Becoming a member of society.

Significant other

Every individual is born into an objective social structure.
En
countering the significant others, in charge of the
socialization > constitutes the specific objective social world.
Significant others mediates a world, but also modifies it.

Learning and emotion

Identification with significant others in emotional ways.
“internalization occurs only as idenitification occurs.” Take
潮⁲ol敳 慮搠attit畤敳 潦 獩g湩fi捡ntt桥r献

ai慬e捴i挠cr潣敳s

扥bw敥渠 i摥湴ifi捡tio渠 批 潴桥h猠 慮搠 s敬f
-
i湤敮nifi捡tio渮
B整w敥渠 潢je捴iv敬y 慳獩g湥搠 慮搠 獵sje捴iv敬y 慰灲潰oi慴ed
i摥dtity⸠ p
畢j散tiv攠 慰ar潰oiati潮o 潦 i摥dtityL獵bj散tive
慰灲潰ri慴i潮o 潦 s潣o慬 w潲l搠


tw漠 a獰sct猠 of th攠 獡m攠
灲潣o獳 潦 i湴敲n慬izi湧Ⱐ m敤e慴敤e 批 t桥h 獡m攠 獩g湩fi捡nt
潴桥r献

d敮eraliz敤t桥r

A扳br慣ti潮 潦 rol敳 慮a 慴tit畤u猠


i摥dtifi捡tion with a
g敮er慬i
ty t桥r猬si⹥⸠.it栠愠h潣iety.

卥pf
-
i摥湴ific慴i潮oattai渠st慢ality 慮搠捯湴i湵ntyⰠ慮搠i摥dtity
i渠n敮er慬.


9

Objective/subjective

Symmetrical relationship between objective and subjective
reality, but not a complete relationship. Never a total
interna
lization of the objective social world, and subjective
biography never fully social.

Language

various motivational and interpretative schemes are
interalized as institutionally defined.

First world

Constructed with primary socialization. Stabil world < t
he
inevitability of the individual’s relationship to his/her first
獩g湩fi捡nt 潴h敲s⸠ lbje捴iv攠 獯si慬 w潲ld 慰a敡rs as
m慳獩v敬y⁡湤⁩湤畢it慢ay⁲敡l.

䕮搠潦⁰rim慲y⁳潣i慬iz慴ion

坨t渠 t桥h 捯湣数e 潦 t桥h g敮eraliz敤e ot桥r 桡猠 扥bn
敳ta扬i桳h搠dn⁣潮 捩o
畳湥s献

b) Secondary socialization

The internalization of institutional or institution
-
based
“subworlds”.

aivi獩潮f l慢潵r

㸠數e敮e of s散潮o慲y 獯si慬izati潮⸠f湣ne慳敳 wit栠in捲敡獩湧
捯c灬數ety.

o潬e
-
獰s捩fic



Knowledge



Require role
-
specific vocabul
aries: internalization off
semantic fields structuring routine interpretations.

Legitimating apparatus

Required.

> subjective identification with the role and appropriate
norms.

Primarya and secondary
socialization

Secondary socialization always presuppo
ses primary s. Must
deal with already formed self and internalizaed world.
Problem of consistency > presupposes conceptual procedures
to integrate different bodies of knowledge.

Biological limitations

The foundational structure of specific knowledge. The
order
of learning things.

Instututional context

Usually apprehended within secondary socialization. School
-
system with teachers performing institutional functionaries of
transmitting knowledge. Possible to detach part of the self and
its reality as releva
nt only for the specific role
-
situations.

c) Maintencance and
transformation of
subjective reality

> to safeguard a measure of symmetry between objective and
subjective reality. Threats to the taken
-
for
-
granted reality. E.g.
marginal situations that do no
t fit with this world (dreams
again). Challenging definitions of reality.

Two types of maintenance



Routine maintanance



Crisis maintainance

1. Routine maintainance

The reality of everyday life continuosly reaffirmed in the
individual’s interaction with ot
桥r献

卩p湩fi捡nt 桥h猠s湤e獳
im灯pt慮t h敲s

Both entail important parts of the individual’s everyday life.
䵡intai湥n t桯h畧栠 i湴era捴i潮o wit栠 b潴h ty灥p. qh攠 k敷
v潲k⁔im敳⁥硡m灬攠


re慳獵se猠畳⁷攠liv攠i渠n桥⁲敡l w潲l搮

f摥湴ity

l湧潩湧 捯湦im
慴i潮ofr潭 敳灥pially 潵o sig湩fi捡nt 潴桥r献
B畴⁡ 獯st桥潲攠e敮er敡l 潴桥r献

E健m獯湡l m敤e愬ap敲h慰a e獰sci慬ly 桯h
-

-
湯n 獩t敳 c潭敳 to
mi湤Ⱐt桥h攠灯p畬慲ity 潦 t桥h攠m敤e愠捡渠捬敡rly i渠灡pt 扥
數灬ai湥搠dit栠愠䉥rg敲⁡ 搠䱵捫m慮渠灥r獰sctiv攩.

ai慬e捴i捡l r敬慴i潮

B整w敥渠 獩g湩fi捡nt 潴桥h猠 慮搠 t桥 le獳 im灯pt慮t 潴桥rs.
Involve the totalitty of the individual’s social situation.

C潮o敲獡ti潮

q桥h m潳o im灯pt慮t v敨e捬攠 潦 r敡lity
-
m慩湴慩湡湣攮e qhe
捯湶敲獡tio湡n 慰a慲慴u猠b潴栠m慩湴慩n猠a湤nm潤
ifi敳 r敡lity.
For instance with doubts concerning reality: “one then “talks
onesefl into” these doubts; they are objectified as reality

10

within one’s own consciousness.”

䱡湧畡ue

q桵猠s敡liz敳⁡⁷ rldW li湧ui獴i挠cbje捴ifi捡ti潮

E健m獯湡l敤e愩

E捬敡rly

潣o異ie猠 in 灡rt th敳e f畮捴i潮献 B敲g敲 慮d
䱵捫i慮渠 慬獯s m敮ei潮o t桥h 畳攠 潦 c潲r敳灯湤n湣n as
灯獳i扬攠 v敨ecle猠 t漠 捯湴i湵n 敳灥pially im灯pt慮t
捯湶敲獡tio湳⸩

偬m畳ibility⁳ r畣t畲敳

o敱畩r敤ef潲 th攠m慩湴ain慮a攠潦 獵sj散tiv攠r敡lityW 獰scific
獯si
慬 b慳攠慮搠獯si慬 灲o捥獳敳⸠eot
-

-
湯n 慳 t散h湩煵攠of
r敡lity
-
m慩湴慩湡湣政 䵯摥d渠 捯湶敲獡ti潮o t散桮潬潧i敳.
B敲g敲 慮搠 䱵捫c慮渠 捬慩m t散桮h捡lly m敤e慴ed
捯湶敲獡tio湳⁡r攠er敡tly⁩湦敲i潲⁴漠f㉦ 捯湶敲s慴i潮献

㈮⁃ri獩猠獩t畡ti潮

偲潣敤畲猠 敳s敮eia
lly 慳 wit栠 ro畴i湥n m慩湴ai湡湣n⸠ But
r敡lity
-
捯湦irm慴i潮猠 桡he t漠 扥b 數elicit a湤n int敮eiv攮
䙲c煵q湴ly⁡ 獯srit畡l⁴散桮i煵敳.

卵pj散t r敡lity⁴ra湳norm敤

l湧潩湧 灲潣os猠 of m潤ofi捡ti潮o of s畢j散tiv攠 r敡lity⸠
aiff敲e湴⁤敧r敥猠sf潤ofi捡ti潮献

Alter
湡ti潮猺 數er敭攠e慳敳
潦⁴r慮獦orm慴i潮o

A灰敡r tot慬.

偲潣e獳f⁲e
-
獯si慬iz慴i潮o

q桥 re慬ity
-
扡b攠 i猠 t桥h 灲敳敮tW 敶敲yt桩湧 will 桡h攠 t漠 be
數灬ai湥搠dr潭⁴桥⁢hli敦猠i渠n桥⁰re獥nt.

k潴⁥砠 ihilo

䵵jt 捯灥 wit栠t桥h灲散e摩湧 湯ni挠獴r畣t畲攠潦 獵bje
ctive
r敡lity⸠.慳⁴漠i湣l畤u⁢潴 s潣oal⁡ 搠捯d捥pt畡l⁣潮 iti潮献

偬m畳ibility⁳ r畣t畲e

䵵jt⁢攠i湴敲n慬i獥dⰠ摩獰sa捩湧⁡ l 桥h⁷orl摳d

C潮o敲獡ti潮ol⁡灰慲慴us

慲攠els漠oe潲g慮az敤e

䱥iitim慴i湧⁡灰 rat畳

䵯jt im灯pt慮t 捯湣数eu慬 r敱畩r敭敮e⸠ 䙯
r the w桯he
獥煵敮捥 潦 tr慮af潲m慴ion⸠k潴 o湬y th攠湥眠re慬ityⰠ扵b t桥
獴慧敳⁢ ⁷桩捨cit⁩s⁡灰r潰riat敤e慮搠a慩湴慩n敤e

o敩湴敲pret慴i潮s

q桥h p慳t 慮搠 灥r獯s猠 潦 t桥h 灡pt 湥n搠 t漠 扥b reint敲灲整敤.
C慮湯a⁤is獡灥慲⁢畴畳u 扥⁣潭灲敨e湤敤ei渠愠n敷ewa


f湴敲m敤e慴攠ey灥p

䘮數⸠獯捩al潢olity⁡湤c捵灡ti潮慬 tr慩ni湧.

䙡捥 th攠 灲潢l敭 潦 mai湴慩湧 捯湳i獴敮ey 扥bwe敮e the
敡rlier⁡ 搠d慴er⁥l敭敮e猠sf⁳畢j散tiv攠ee慬ity.

呩湫敲i湧⁴h攠灡st

B畴 i渠a l敳s r慤a捡l m慮湥r⸠r獵慬ly 愠捯湴i湵i湧 慳s潣oati

wit栠h敲s潮猠o湤⁧r潵灳o潦 t桥⁰慳t.

2. INTERNALIZATION AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE

Macro
-
sociological context

Always the background for micro
-
sociological analysis of
internalization processes.

Socio
-
structural aspects

Of successful and unsuccessful soci
alization.

Successful socialization

High symmetry between objective and subjective reality (and
identity). Graduations on a continuum. Extreme poles are
unavailable. Maximal success likely in societies with very
simple division of labour and minimal distr
ibution of
knowledge.

Counter
-
realities

Based on unsuccessful socialization. Counter
-
definitions of
reality and identity < as soon as unsuccessfuly socialized
individuals congregate in socially duarble groups. Counter
-
reality objectivated in the marginal
group of unsuccessfully
socialized. The leper
-
example. Unsuccessful socialization into
one world, but successful socialization into another world.

1. Heterogenity in the
socializing personnel

> unsuccessful socialization. More complex distribution of
know
ledge: different significant others mediating different
objective realities. Very dubious example of how people may
be socialized gays.

> Therapeutic mechanisms.

2. Mediation of discrepant
During primary socialization > unsucc
essful socialization.

11

worlds by significant others

Complex distribution of knowledge. A little hard to
differentiate from the example above. But difference seems to
be that this is actually discrepant worlds (not just somewhat
different objective realities


v敲獩o湳nof t桥⁳慭攠w潲ld
F⸠.he
捨cl搠


灡r敮t猯湵ns攠e硡m灬攮e㸠th攠灯獳i扩lity 潦 愠桩摤dn
i摥dtityW⁡ 獹m整ry⁢整w敥渠灵扬i挠c湤⁰riv慴攠i摥湴ity.

偯獳m扩lity ⁩湤ivi摵dli獭

f湤nvi摵慬 捨潩c攠扥tw敥n 摩獣r数e湴 r敡litie猠慮搠id敮eiti敳W
摩re捴ly li湫敤et漠t桥h灯獳i扩lity 潦
畮獵u捥s獦ul s潣oaliz慴i潮o
“the potential to migrate between a number of available
w潲l摳d慮搠w桯hh慳 摥liber慴敬y 慮搠慷arely 捯湳tru捴敥搠a
self out of the “material” provided by a number of identities.”
Eㄷㄩ.

㌮⁄i獣r数慮ai敳⁢整we敮e
灲im慲y⁡湤⁳e捯
湤nry
獯si慬iz慴i潮

fn 獥捯湤cry 獯sializati潮I 慬t敲湡tiv攠 r敡litie猠 慮搠 i摥湴i敳
慰灥ar a猠獵sje捴iv攠潰oi潮献s卵pj散tiv敬y 捨潳敮ei摥dtity 慳 a
fantasy identity, objectified within the individual’s
consciousness as “his/her real self”

aiff敲e湴⁷慹猠潦

id敮eifyi湧

fn 獥挮c 獯s⸠ inter湡liz慴io渠 湥n搠 湯n 扥b a捣潭灡pi敤e 批
慦f散tiv敬y 捨crg敤e i摥湴ifi捡t潮o wit栠 獩g湩fi捡nt 潴桥h献
f湴敲湡nizi湧⁲敡litie猠睩t桯畴⁩d敮eific慴i潮o

o敡lity⁡湤 i摥dtity
灬畲慬i獭

B畴 m畳u b攠畮摥d獴o潤orel慴敤et漠獯sio
-
獴r畣t畲
慬 捯湴數t <
湥n敳獡ry r敬atio湳ni瀠 扥tw敥渠 獯捩慬 divi獩潮o of l慢潵r
E捯湣敱略湣ns for s潣o慬 獴r畣u畲eF a湤nt桥h獯sial 摩獴ri扵tion
潦 k湯nl敤e攠 E捯湳敱略nc敳 for t桥h獯si慬 潢j散tivati潮 潦
r敡lityF.

3. THEORIES ABOUT IDENTITY

Identity/society

Dialect
ic relationship. Identity formed by social processes,
that again are in part formed by social structures. Identity
maintained, modified, changed by social relations.

Dialectic process

I.e. Identity


獯si慬 relatio湳⁧漠扯o栠h慹献

f摥湴ity⁴y灥p

B慳敤e潮

獰s捩fic 桩獴ori捡l 獯si慬 獴r畣t畲敳⸠oe捯c湩z慢a攠in
i湤nvi摵慬⁣慳e献⁓潣i慬⁰ro摵捴猠
tout court
, stable elements of
objective social reality.

Psychologies

Theories about identity as social phenomenon. Necessary to
recognize the reality
-
definitions th
at are taken for granted in
the social situation of the individual.

Psychology/subjective
reality

Another dialectic relationship between psychological theory
and those elements of subjective reality that it purports to
define and explain. Psychologically
defined cases may be
internalized as realities through socializatin by the individual.
Constituents of both objective and subjective reality in
relevant contexts. Internatlization/identification: psychology
pertains to identity. “the imprint of societal id
敮eity ty灥p
異潮ut桥hi湤nvi摵慬 s畢j散tiv攠r敡ltiy 潦 潲di湡ry 灥潰p攠with
commonsense”.

C桡湧敳⁩渠n獹捨潬潧i捡l
t桥hrie

坨t渠id敮eity 慰灥慲猠a猠愠灲潢o敭⸠䙯爠i湳n慮捥 捡畳u搠批
r慤a捡l 捨c湧敳 i渠 t桥h 獯捩al 獴r畣t畲献s 㸠 C桡湧敳 i渠 t桥
灳p捨潬潧i捡l
r敡lity.



4. ORGANISM AND IDENTITY

Human’s animality

qr慮af潲m敤ei渠獯sializ慴i潮Ⱐ扵b 湥n敲 慢潬is桥搮hai慬e捴ic
扥bw敥渠湡t畲攠e湤n獯siety.

ai慬e捴ic

䕸瑥r湡nlyW⁢ tw敥渠i湤ivid畡u⁡湩m慬⁡湤 獯sial⁷潲ld

Internally: between the individual’s biologi
c慬 獵扳tr慴畭 慮搠
桩猠s潣o慬ly⁰ 潤畣敤ei摥dtity.

“In the dialectic between nature and the socially constructed

12

world, the human organism itself is transformed. In this same
dialectic man produces reality and thereby produces himself”
Eㄸ㌩.